Deterrence

[NewsGuy]

There's a theory of criminal justice, where one of the reasons for punishment is to serve as a deterrence to potential future criminals.

Now, let's take the case of the Palestinian suicide bombers. What can really deter them from blowing themselves up in a crowd of Israeli or American civilians?

Certainly the ultimate punishment, i.e., death, is of no deterrence to them becuase they are already willing to die. Is there nothing, then to deter them?

[cerulean]

I read the Russians went after the terrorists' families. Notice that Pakistan has arrested family members of the suspected kidnappers of Daniel Pearl as a means of applying pressure.

I doubt this is a suitable response for a democratic state, but the question NewsGuy asks then remains unanswered.

[cerulean]

What is somewhat odd about suicide bombers is that they often adopt many aspects of Western culture and appear to enjoy those aspects.

Some of the September 11 bombers went to Pizza Hut shortly before executing the attacks. (From my understanding, Pizza Hut is not acceptable for a true believer, due to the uncertainty of the halal standard, but that's obviously a moot point now.) The Palestinians who hate the West so much may be wearing American fashions. Obviously exposure to Western culture is not sufficient to deter suicide bombers.

[cerulean]

Coincidentally, I was just reading this report of a scientific study:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/uow-nrs021202.php

The gist of the study's results is that people are willing to harm themselves significantly in order to harm someone else they perceive to be doing better than themselves. I'm not sure how well this study, done in England, plays out around the world, but it does seem to play out in the case of suicide bombers.

[Negev]

Originally posted by cerulean
I read the Russians went after the terrorists' families. Notice that Pakistan has arrested family members of the suspected kidnappers of Daniel Pearl as a means of applying pressure.

that is a good way to deter the islamic scumbag terrorists.

notice that the world kept quiet about this tactic. not a peep from the eu when any nation other than israel goes after terrorism that way it should be done.

[takeo]

It would put Israel on the same level as the worst terrorists by the whole world(as happened in Kosovo and in Tchechnia), would make victims from the terrorists and make them martyrs and finally the family of the suicide-killers would love to offer themselves for "the great cause". However i'm sure Sharon will love the idea.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Negev
notice that the world kept quiet about this tactic. not a peep from the eu when any nation other than israel goes after terrorism that way it should be done.

That's very key.

Not a peep from the world, indeed, when Russia fought the Chechnian terrorists who bombed the Russian shopping mall.

As soon as they determined that the terrorism was done by Chechnyan Muslims (within 24 hours of the incident), the Russians blew up city block after block of Muslim apartment buildings where the Islamic terrorists' families lived. Then the Russians simply executed (without trial) dozens of Muslim terrorist prisoners. And, guess what? Since then there have been no more bombings of Russian shopping malls.

Has there been any international outcry against Russia? No.

Not even the hypocritical EU dared to open its mouth. France was too busy drafting anti-Israel resolutions at the UN to please its Arab oil-masters and Belgium was too busy eating bon-bons to accuse Russia of anything at all. And the US also supported Russia's right to defend itself.

In Israel, on the other hand, it is a completely different story, becuase in the eyes of the world, Jewish blood is not as valuable as Russian blood and Israel has no right to defened itself against Arab terrorism.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
I read the Russians went after the terrorists' families. Notice that Pakistan has arrested family members of the suspected kidnappers of Daniel Pearl as a means of applying pressure.

I doubt this is a suitable response for a democratic state, but the question NewsGuy asks then remains unanswered.

True, this is unsuitable in theory, but I think that the typical international laws are based on assumtions that there is no full-scale war to mass murder a civilian population, like the Arabs are doing to Israel.

I wonder, from a moral standpoint, whether international laws (which may be inapplicable anyway) are more important than basic survival. In other words, is it better to be dead and "right" or to be alive and debate the issues?

Of course, in the case of the Russians, they didn't scratch their heads all day trying to solve this kind of dilema. They acted to destroy Islamic terrorism and were successful in protecting their citizens and nobody said anything against them.

[cerulean]

I don't see the United States objecting to Pakistan's methods, even though it's a US citizen in jeopardy.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by NewsGuy


I wonder, from a moral standpoint, whether international laws (which may be inapplicable anyway) are more important than basic survival. In other words, is it better to be dead and "right" or to be alive and debate the issues?


As Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg said, "The constitution is not a suicide pact" (in reference to the US Constitution, of course).

[takeo]

Israel could use the same methods as in Tchechnia but than Russia, nor Pakistan are considered democratic countries that are known for respecting human rights. Such mesures would only make israel even less a democratic and more a totalitarian country. (as Russia and pakistan). besides Russian actions in tchechnia don't seem to be very effective, as in palestine the war in Tchechnia is going on since 1993 and the rebels are on the edge of recapturing Grozny again from the thirth largest army in the world. And the reason why Russia didn't receive any un-resolution condamning Russia is simple: Russia is a member of the UN-security council. Yet the Serbs, a country of the same size as Israel, used the same methods as you described and the reaction of the international community was quite different...

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
And the reason why Russia didn't receive any un-resolution condamning Russia is simple: Russia is a member of the UN-security council.

I think that this is the first time you're starting to make sense.

In our world there is a very different standard for Israel, than there is for the rest of the world.

For example, a country like Russia, is allowed to fight Islamic terrorism by taking real measures to protect its citizens effectively. This is because Russia has a large population, has oil production, and has purchasing power (even though many of its citizens are dirt poor), and also has a permanent seat on the UN security council, becuase at one time, it threatened the entire world with nuclear disaster.

Israel, on the other hand, is expected to allow its citizens to be butchered by Isalmic terrorists and by other Arab mass murderers becuase it is a small country with a small economy.

There's no moral reason to prevent Israel from defending itself, it is just a matter of world greed and balance of military power that determines whose cause is justified.

[takeo]

well, the part about Russia is certainly true, yet it could be much worse for Israel (look at Serbia or even indonesia) if they hadn't american protection to protect them against their victims and international justice.
Another difference is that Tchetchnia is recognised as a part of Russia since the 19th century while the occupied territories were occupied in a time when occupying neighbouring countries and oppressing their population was no longer accepted(1967).
(look at Afghanistan, East-Timor, Southern sahara, etc.) no single country occupying and adhering another region or country after 1950 succeeded without huge problems or/and war.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
As Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg said, "The constitution is not a suicide pact" (in reference to the US Constitution, of course).

Well said.

This is exactly something Israel needs to use as a counter-PR attack in prepartion for serious action against the Palestinians -- not just blasting empty buildings.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
I don't see the United States objecting to Pakistan's methods, even though it's a US citizen in jeopardy.

Exactly.

Nor do Isee anyone objecting to the US' own justified methods of dealing with al Qaeda and the Taliban.

As Bibi Netanyahu said recently, Israel needs to do to Arafatistan what the US is doing in Afghanistan.

[takeo]

you are clearly going for an escalation.
OK, go on and we'll see what will happen.
But don't complain about the consequences for Israel afterwards!
Anyway i wouldn't go to Israel for a holiday in the next years, at least if this genocidal plans of yours will become reality.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
Anyway i wouldn't go to Israel for a holiday in the next years, at least if this genocidal plans of yours will become reality.

If you change your mind, don't take a leisurely coffee break anywhere near a Palestinian police station or any of Arafat's offices. :)

[takeo]

I think it would be wise to leave the middle-east, including Israel, it seems the war is not finished yet.
I wouldn't take a coffee-break near a palestinian police office, nor would I take a break near any police or army station in Israel or in the occupied territories.

[McSceptic]

If you want to succeed in running an occupied country, you need to use your head.

The Nazis were signally unsuccessful in their occupations - where a local population didn't cooperate they got the stick - collective punishment. It didn't stop terrorism/resistance attacks.

The one place there was some success was in Czechoslovkia, where Heydrich used a combination of carrot and stick to turn the place into quite a productive appendage of the Reich. That's probably why the British backed the plan to assasinate him, even though the Czechs on the ground were against it.

Current Israeli policies seem calculated to unite the Palestinians rather than divide them. It needs a lot more finesse.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by McSceptic
If you want to succeed in running an occupied country, you need to use your head.

The Nazis were signally unsuccessful in their occupations

These comparisons of Israel to the Nazis are complete nonesense.

Israel has no desire to occupy anyone. Sharon has publicly called for a Palestinian state.

The only problem is the Palestinians who equate a Palestinian state with ongoing terrorism and genocide of the Jewish people. That cannot be tolerated of course.


And, what is the definition of occupation anyway? There is no Palestinian state to occupy in the first place.

And secondly, can you call homicidal criminals and serial killers in jail "occupied" people who are entitled to mass murder society? I think not.

Just like any law-and-order society has the right (and obligation) to restrict the movement of criminals in order to protect society, so does Israel have the right to restrict the movement of suicide bombers as self-defense. If it requires closing off entire Palestinian cities, so be it. Society must be protected from mass murderers.

[takeo]

"And secondly, can you call homicidal criminals and serial killers in jail "occupied" people who are entitled to mass murder society? I think not. "

well, the nazi's called the resistance fighters against occupation serial killers as well... and some resistance actually did kill german civil settlers as well.

Poland/gaza and westbank was occupied by Germany as it was taken by force by germany/israel and has not been recognised by the international community or by the people inhabiting this areas. That can be called "occupation".

"Just like any law-and-order society has the right (and obligation) to restrict the movement of criminals in order to protect society, so does Israel have the right to restrict the movement of suicide bombers as self-defense. If it requires closing off entire Palestinian cities, so be it. Society must be protected from mass murderers."

It has this right in its own land(but even than it has to observe the geneva-conventions, Serbia denied this) , not in land that doesn't belong to them and where they have no international mandate to intervene.

[McSceptic]

If semantics got things sorted, we'd have philosophers running countries instead of keeping them out of harm's way running universities.

Whatever you want to call it, Israel has control over a large, alien population. If you want to manage that kind of situation, you need some smarts. Essentially divide and rule. Blanket punishment is not smart, it's dumb, and only unites the population against you.

Don't the Americans say: you catch more bears with honey, than you do by shooting at them?

[Flame]

McSceptic....
Don't the Americans say: you catch more bears with honey, than you do by shooting at them?


That saying applies to social encounters... not to Jidhad or war. I take it you have never been to the US.

[takeo]

It doesn't apply to terrorists, however it DOES apply for gaining more sympathy or less resistance among the ordinary population. (which is the bloood and heart of the terrorist organisations)

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by McSceptic
Whatever you want to call it, Israel has control over a large, alien population. If you want to manage that kind of situation, you need some smarts. Essentially divide and rule. Blanket punishment is not smart, it's dumb, and only unites the population against you.

Don't the Americans say: you catch more bears with honey, than you do by shooting at them?

In the case of Islamic terrorists, bullets are highly effective.

But the larger issue is that Israel is not looking for strategies to be an efficient occupier. In fact, for the last 50 years, Israel has been looking for ways to live side-by-side with its Arab neighbors, not occupy them.

For this reason, Israel is mostly just trying to contain Arab terrorism while being able to negotiate a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Just today, Ariel Sharon again said that he is looking for ways to eliminate Arafat's terror machine in the hopes that one day there will eventually rise a Palestinian leadership that is capable of reaching a peace agreement.

The "collective punishment" that you refer to, which is to limit the travel of Palestinians through areas of Jewish population centers is not occupation, it is containment of Palestinian terrorism, like keeping mass murderers in jail to protect society.

And so what if the palestinians are united in their hatred of Israel? There has never been a peace movement within the Palestinian population. In fact, 2/3 of the Palestinians support suicide mass murders of Jewish civilians.

So the palestinians can be united as they want in their national mass murder pact. But, when they actually act on this policy, then they need to be separated from civilized society.

[McSceptic]

But Israel has been running these territories for thirty years. Plenty of time for a disengagement.

Israel didn't have a peace treaty with these areas before 1967, so a withdrawl would, on paper, be a return to the status quo.

I can only assume that the continued Israeli presence is down to a calculation that without the territories as a buffer Israel would be too vulnerable to external threats.

Than being the case, and assuming you don't expel the populations there, then you need a compliant regime installed there. That requires some thought, not simply "smash the Palestinans".

[cerulean]

Here is one possible method of deterrence:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=18751

Israeli settlers in Gush Katif, who suffered a terrorist attack in the past few days, decided to wrap a terrorist's body in pigskin and pig fat before handing the body back.

So how does the possibility of wrapping the terrorists' dead bodies in pigskin and pig fat sound? Should the terrorists' bodies be returned to their communities?

From what I understand, being buried with a pig sends a person straight to hell (thus, no 72 virgins and no paradise), or at least that is a common Islamic belief.

[pardon]

deterrence is bullshit!

in a situation like this to count on deterrence is incredibly naiv.


the only way to peace is a disclamation of violence. Both sides!!!

But someone has to start. But this one will be a hero, a hero of all mankind.

There is no justified war!!!

[watcher]

Hate to burst your bubble but there are two sides here. Understand this, these people "palestinians" have to join in. It's clearly impossible to achieve peace if only one side comes to the table seeking peace.

There's no justified war, There is however justified defense. When you are continously murdered by savage terrorists without defending yourself eventually you will cease to be a people.

[takeo]

let me remind you that Sharon refused every talk with the palestinians but Arafat still offers Sharon to talk, even after several murder attempts and other violence by the israeli. The palestinians offer to talk, Israel answers with violence... and so the palestinians will retaliate with violence too.
Let me remind you that as long as israel occupies gaza and westbank any israeli operation in this regions is not self-defense but colonisation.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
let me remind you that Sharon refused every talk with the palestinians but Arafat still offers Sharon to talk, even after several murder attempts and other violence by the israeli.

LOL.

Sharon has generously offered, almost begged the Palestinians to negotiate for peace. He even called for the establishment of a second Palestinian state.

The only condition was that the Palestinian terorrism must stop for 7 days. This was impossible for the Palestinian mass murderers sent by Arafat, however.

Even as of 2 weeks ago Sharon sat to talk with Arafat's head criminals, like Abu Ala, to try to reach a cease fire agreement, after the Palestinians butchered nearly 600 innocent Israeli victims.

[alexbmn]

Takeo you retard, after the Dolphinarium suicide bombing Sharon actually proclaimed a seize fire hoping the situaiton will calm down, and of course the Palestinians "honored" it with some more violence.

[takeo]

So why doesn't he want to talk with arafat, the only legitimised elected representative of the palestinian people, and even refused him to leave abroad to search help from Europe and America in negociating? Why didn't Israel implement the mitchell recommendations?
in fact this 7 days are a joke, in the current situation of relaliation against retaliation and the lack of PA controll over its people, the more serious the violence got, the more urgent talks are necessary to stop it, 7 days or no 7 days. By the way when arafat called for a seace-fire in december, Sharon answered by bombing even more buildings and committing even more assasination of palestinian leaders. (on the palestinian side the violence diminished temporarely, but not on israeli side).
It is very simple why Sharon does so: peace would treaten the right-wing unity as it is divided over what should happen after a cease-fire is established. Anyway, all that arafat-bashing will not help to bring a compromise, as they will have to negociate with Arafat very soon again, unless of course they plan to extend this war for decades to come. The palestinians nor the world will accept any other autority as the PA as the representation of the palestinians.

[pardon]

what is defense what is it retaliation?

each suicide bombing follows an israeli militry act. are these "acts" defense?

and each israeli military strike follows an suicide bomging. defense?

both sides have to stop this never ending act-react-act... sheme. it's not justified although it's easy to retrace.


alexb....please don't call any member of this board a retard!

[pardon]

7 days without any terror acts? is this really possible in a situation like this?

why sharon insists of 7 days?

[watcher]

It's hard to keep Suicide Bombers and the other mindless bloodthirsty mass murdering scum from commiting their attrocities without preventative measures. "palestinians" must stop their terrorism... Yes it's possible if you're a people who truly seek peace. But it's apparent "palestine" is not meant to take that role with their label "palestine"

Look at the targets.. Israel targets trained personnel as opposed to innocent civilians.

Alexb he's not to be called a retard! Prehaps a phobia towards reality or impaired by propaganda... but not to be called retarded.

[NewsGuy]

"So why doesn't he want to talk with arafat, the only legitimised elected representative of the palestinian people, and even refused him to leave abroad to search help from Europe and America in negociating? Why didn't Israel implement the mitchell recommendations?"

Sharon has said repeatedly that he would talk to Arafat if Arafat stops the terrorist attacks on Israelis. It is really that simple. Otherwise, Sharon is rightfully keeping the serial killer Arafat in Jail. That is what civilized countries do with common criminals like Arafat.

Israel has accepted the Mitchel plan a long time ago. But it calls for an end to Palestinian terrorism first, which has not happened yet.





"By the way when arafat called for a seace-fire in december, Sharon answered by bombing even more buildings and committing even more assasination of palestinian leaders. (on the palestinian side the violence diminished temporarely, but not on israeli side). "

The Palestinians never even for 24 hours stopped murdering innocent Israelis. When you say "diminished", you are actually correct. Arab mass murder of Jews dropped to a "mere" 170 incidents of terrorism per month, which was down from more than 300 previously.

Anyone sane understands that 170 incidents of terrorism means that a serious campaign of mass murder is going on, and does not qualify as stopping terorrism as required by the Mitchell plan.

I wonder, for example, what it would be like in France or Holland, or the UK, if there were 170 incidents of Islamic terrorism against ordinary citizens per month there, whether they would consider it a peaceful situation or not.




"It is very simple why Sharon does so: peace would treaten the right-wing unity as it is divided over what should happen after a cease-fire is established."

Sounds to me that you are paranoid of some imaginery right wing conspiracy. It must hurt a leftist to admit that the right wing aspires to true peace, without tolerating terrorism.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by pardon
7 days without any terror acts? is this really possible in a situation like this?

why sharon insists of 7 days?

Good question. Why would Sharon only insist on 7 days and not 7 years of a total end to Arab terrorism, before rewarding the Arabs with the gift of more Jewish land?

I don't know, really. I think it's a big mistake to have such ridiculously low expectations of one's so-called "peace partners."

[takeo]

"Sharon has said repeatedly that he would talk to Arafat if Arafat stops the terrorist attacks on Israelis. It is really that simple. Otherwise, Sharon is rightfully keeping the serial killer Arafat in Jail. That is what civilized countries do with common criminals like Arafat."

First of all civilised countries do not occupy neighbouring countries, do not commit etnic cleansing and do comply to un-resolutions. Sharon said he would not talk to arafat again, who has become "irrelevant" to him. And as long as Sharon doesn't stop retaliations against the palestinians the palestinians won't stop theirs too.

"Israel has accepted the Mitchel plan a long time ago. But it calls for an end to Palestinian terrorism first, which has not happened yet. "

The mitchell plan called AT THE SAME TIME for israeli restraint and leaving all the pa-controlled regions.





"The Palestinians never even for 24 hours stopped murdering innocent Israelis. When you say "diminished", you are actually correct. Arab mass murder of Jews dropped to a "mere" 170 incidents of terrorism per month, which was down from more than 300 previously. "

well, israeli attacks on the palestinians however didn't diminish. What of course provoked new palestinian reprisals.

"Anyone sane understands that 170 incidents of terrorism means that a serious campaign of mass murder is going on, and does not qualify as stopping terorrism as required by the Mitchell plan. "

Actually after Arafat's speach, few people died on israeli side, and those 170 incidents were really minor and not organised by one of the major palestinian groups, and not directed on israeli territory. However Sharon continued his destruction and assasination-policy as if nothing had changed.

"I wonder, for example, what it would be like in France or Holland, or the UK, if there were 170 incidents of Islamic terrorism against ordinary citizens per month there, whether they would consider it a peaceful situation or not. "

well, as these countries are not occupying neighbouring countries they are not faced with the same problems. yet GB was faced by severe terrorism supported by northern irish catholics and still Blair did talk to the IRA, with as a consequence that today the violence almost stopped, with the exception of some extremist groups. And of course in the current situation a peacefull situation will only be achieved trough negociation, if sharon refuses this than the violence will go on.




"Sounds to me that you are paranoid of some imaginery right wing conspiracy. It must hurt a leftist to admit that the right wing aspires to true peace, without tolerating terrorism."

Why is it than that several cabinet-members and party-members did protest against sharon's offer of a palestinian state? (i don't think that is a genuine offer, as he was opposed in the past to any such offer)

[takeo]

one can't expect to occupy someones land, destroy villages and houses, torture, and than expect them to accept this for 7 years without resistance. Your plan would mean war untill the destruction of both palestine and israel. But actually during the 70's there was relative calm in the occupied territories; what was the result: nothing.
In the 80's palestinian started resisting and they achieved Oslo, in 2000, as Oslo failed, they resisted even more, and now is a large part of israeli society convinced, even the most right-wing, that a palestinian state, even with eastern jerusalem as its capital, is a necessity. they know the alternative is war.
The lesson is that you should always resist to occupation and oppression if you want it to end.

[NewsGuy]

"The mitchell plan called AT THE SAME TIME for israeli restraint and leaving all the pa-controlled regions."


Takeo, as usual, you seem to be mistaken on the facts.

US senator George Mitchell published a report calling for an unconditional cessation of violence followed by "a cooling-off period" before the resumption of peace negotiations.

Just today the perpetually useless Kofi Annan suggested that Mitchell was outdated. See article here (http://www.theage.com.au/breaking/2002/02/22/FFXZQOKJYTC.html).

This was the very same Mitchell agreement that the Palestinians have never been willing to follow, because it's basically impossible for Arabs to stop terrorism for even 24 hours. All along, Israel has been willing to resume talks with Arafat based on Mitchell, but it is the Palestinians have always rejected any type of civilized talks.



"Actually after Arafat's speach, few people died on israeli side, and those 170 incidents were really minor and not organised by one of the major palestinian groups, and not directed on israeli territory."

Well, again, for you the fact that 4 suicide bombing attempts were prevented by Israel, where the Palestinian mass murderers were caught cutting the fence leading to Israeli border towns with explosives strapped to their bodies, are "minor" incidents. To you, daily machine gun fire at Israeli motorists are also "minor" incidents.

This is one of your problems, apart from getting the facts wrong. To you, mass murder of Jews is just fine. A minor inconvenience at best, for which the poor Palestinians should be immediately rewarded with even more generous land gifts from Israel. Most people would disagree, though.




"yet GB was faced by severe terrorism supported by northern irish catholics and still Blair did talk to the IRA, with as a consequence that today the violence almost stopped, with the exception of some extremist groups. "

You probably are not aware of this from last week, which occurred during Jack Straw's visit to Israel:

In a joint press appearance with Peres, Straw said the wave of
suicide attacks that Israelis have endured over the past 16 months were "almost impossible to imagine." He said that if Britain - like Israelis - faced "weekend after weekend" of the sort of terror attacks that struck Omagh in Northern Ireland several years ago, British policies there would be dramatically different.

"The first steps that have to be taken are to make the life of the
people of Israel much more secure, and that means clamping down on the terrorism which comes from the occupied territories," Straw said.

[cerulean]

It's also worth noting that the IRA has stated they have stopped terrorism, as of September 11. (I haven't kept up with that part of the world to know how that is working.) I'm not sure of the IRA's reasoning, or if they are just doing this for temporary tactical reasons.

But, nevertheless, there's been no similar denunciation in the Arab world.

[McSceptic]

The IRA have pretty much stopped violence (still some punishment shootings to enforce their hold on the street). The Loyalist groups have been quite active tho, and there are a couple of active breakaway IRA factions (responsible for Omagh, for instance). Not prefect, but quite a lot quieter.

It would need a whole other thread to debate why republican terror has ended. Essentially, I'd say it all came out of the 1970s when terrorism was cool throughout Europe (Bader Meinhof, Action Direct etc) and the leaders of these movements have simply grown up. In Ireland, the problem was exacerbated in the early 70s by the British reponse, which was too heavy handed - especially Bloody Sunday. More targeted policing kept a lid on it until it ran out of steam.

It is interesting that September the 11th seems to have ended American support for Irish terrorism, that's been a big factor in cutting support for the breakaway IRA factions and is long overdue.

[takeo]

If GB reacted the same way on Omagh as Israel would do, by bombing catholic neighbourhoods for example, the agreements would have been torn to peaces. GB makes a difference with groups who seek peace and real terrorists (the difference between IRA(or its political wing sinn fein) and real IRA, sharon doesn't make that difference and treats them all the same way.
When Blair started to negociate with the IRA, it wasn't rewarding terrorism (as Tatcher would have seen it, and sharon for sure too) but seeking a solution.
You are right Mcsceptic that the stubborn Brittish conduct (and things as bloody sunday, the palestinians have had a dozen of bloody sundays) has only enhanced terror and support for terror. The same happens in Palestine.
besides, when GB promised to engage them in the negociations about the future of Ireland, they stopped terrorism, not on 11th september.
there is however a big difference, which is that Northern Ireland is still recognised as a part of GB, whereas westbank and Gaza are not, which makes the palestinian actions(against the military) legitimised in international law.

newsguy: one of the mitchell recommendations that should immidiately be taken: "The GOI should lift closures, transfer to the PA all tax revenues owed, and permit Palestinians who had been employed in Israel to return to their jobs; and should ensure that security forces and settlers refrain from the destruction of homes and roads, as well as trees and other agricultural property in Palestinian areas. We acknowledge the GOI's position that actions of this nature have been taken for security reasons. Nevertheless, the economic effects will persist for years."
this was also part of the mitchell report: "there is also no evidence on which to conclude that the PA made a consistent effort to contain the demonstrations and control the violence once it began; or that the GOI made a consistent effort to use non-lethal means to control demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians. Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly.

The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint."

"The Interim Agreement provides that "the two parties view the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period." Coupled with this, the Interim Agreement's prohibition on taking steps which may prejudice permanent status negotiations denies Israel the right to continue its illegal expansionist settlement policy. In addition to the Interim Agreement, customary international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits Israel (as an occupying power) from establishing settlements in occupied territory pending an end to the conflict.17"

"The GOI and the PA should reaffirm their commitment to existing agreements and undertakings and should immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.


The GOI and PA should immediately resume security cooperation"

"None of the two parties have untill now done this
The collapse of security cooperation in early October reflected the belief by each party that the other had committed itself to a violent course of action. If the parties wish to attain the standard of 100 percent effort to prevent violence, the immediate resumption of security cooperation is mandatory.

We acknowledge the reluctance of the PA to be seen as facilitating the work of Israeli security services absent an explicit political context (i.e., meaningful negotiations) and under the threat of Israeli settlement expansion. Indeed, security cooperation cannot be sustained without such negotiations and with ongoing actions seen as prejudicing the outcome of negotiations. However, violence is much more likely to continue without security cooperation. Moreover, without effective security cooperation, the parties will continue to regard all acts of violence as officially sanctioned.

In order to overcome the current deadlock, the parties should consider how best to revitalize security cooperation. We commend current efforts to that end. Effective cooperation depends on recreating and sustaining an atmosphere of confidence and good personal relations. It is for the parties themselves to undertake the main burden of day-to-day cooperation, but they should remain open to engaging the assistance of others in facilitating that work. Such outside assistance should be by mutual consent, should not threaten good bilateral working arrangements, and should not act as a tribunal or interpose between the parties. There was good security cooperation until last year that benefited from the good offices of the U.S. (acknowledged by both sides as useful), and was also supported indirectly by security projects and assistance from the European Union. The role of outside assistance should be that of creating the appropriate framework, sustaining goodwill on both sides, and removing friction where possible. That framework must be seen to be contributing to the safety and welfare of both communities if there is to be acceptance by those communities of these efforts."





mitchell-report: "http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/mitchell.htm"

[takeo]

sorry, this is the Sharm el-sheik fact-finding committee which included Mitchell.

[takeo]

which is actually the official name of the mitchell-report.

"Well, again, for you the fact that 4 suicide bombing attempts were prevented by Israel, where the Palestinian mass murderers were caught cutting the fence leading to Israeli border towns with explosives strapped to their bodies, are "minor" incidents. To you, daily machine gun fire at Israeli motorists are also "minor" incidents. "

these are not minor incidents, but it was a lot better than the violence that happened before. the israeli targetted assasinationsons and destructions on the other hand were no minor incidents either, and in clear violation to all international recommendations, and of course not an incentive for tha pelstinians to commit themselves to peace.

"This is one of your problems, apart from getting the facts wrong. To you, mass murder of Jews is just fine. A minor inconvenience at best, for which the poor Palestinians should be immediately rewarded with even more generous land gifts from Israel. Most people would disagree, though. "

No, for me the occupation of land that doesn't belong to Israel and is hated by the people who live in this areas is the major source of the violence. And resistance to it is allowed by international law, and isn't mass-murder, as long as this resistance limits itself to the occupying force.
The reason why we are confronted with such violence today is because Israel refused for 35 years to comply to un-resolutions urging it to leave the occupyed territories. this is not rewarding palestinians, this is an obligation that israel failed to attain.

[takeo]

The Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970) emphasised that all states are under a duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives people of their right to self-determination. The Declaration also notes that "in their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action" such peoples could receive support in accordance with the purpose and principles of the UN Charter.
Various UN resolutions have reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for liberation from colonial domination and alien subjection, "by all available means including armed struggle" (see UNGA 3070, 3103, 3246, 3328, 3481, 31/91, 32/42 and 32/154).
Article 1(4) of Protocol I (additional to the Geneva Conventions) considers self-determination struggles as international armed conflicts situations. The principle of self-determination itself provides that where forcible action has been taken to suppress the right, force may be used in order to counter this and achieve self-determination.

[NewsGuy]

All that sounds pretty impressive, all those UN resolutions that explicitly give the Palestinians (and any other person who so desires) the right to set off biologocal or nuclear bombs in Israel, or just blow up hundreds of thousands of Israeli schoolchildren, because the UN has decided that it would be "legitimate resistance" to the occupation of the poor Palestinian people.

The resolution you quoted says "any means," right?

Well, of course you neglect to mention that the provision of "any means" is under intense debate at the UN to remove it, becuase it is not only one of the most idiotic UN resolutions in its pathetic history, but it is also standing in the way of reaching agreement on the UN's much needed Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism.

As usual, there is a huge disagreement in diplomatic circles about whether every Islamic terrorist can say that they have a license to fly planes into office buildings in the US, or mass murder Israelis in shopping malls, because they think that the Israelis or the US is occupying Saudi Arabian or Palestinian land that needs to be liberated with mass-murder Jihad.

Again, it seems that the UN is being blocked from reaching a definition on the meaning of "terrorism" because Arab countries, like Syria and France want to give Islamists carte blanche to mass murder anyone they feel might be "occupying" land, and therefore exempt from world treaties relating to terrorism.

But I think that the UN resolutions you are describing, which have always been rejected by the victims of Islamic terrorism, especially Israel and India, will be re-written to be able to define the acts which you justify, as what they really are, which is plain and simple terrorism and mass murder.

Even the UN calls the mass murder of schoolchildren terrorism, not some right to recover what is claimed to be so-called occupied land, especially when there is a diplomatic process to reach agreement on the land.

And, in any event, Israel is not occupying Palestinian land, so the whole issue is not even applicable. That's just Arab propaganda to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Jews. According to UN resolution 242, the borders are to be decided in the process of negotiation, so it cannot be claimed that Israel is an occupier.

[takeo]

The resolution you quoted says "any means," right?

actually this was an addition to the geneva-conventions wich means that the other geneva-conventions, which specifically condamns attacks on civilians, ashould be complied as well. So in fact this means "any means allowed by the Geneva-conventions".
So, no, murdering kids in pizza-stores is not legal, but killing occupying sodiers in gaza or westbank is legal, and should be legal as long as these troops are staying there without any invitation(as happened in saoudi Arabia, so legally saoudi Arabia is not occupied) or international approval. And yes 11th september is illegal, in clear contradiction to international law, he is a terrorist, palestinians shooting at occupying soldiers are freedom fighters.
And i'm sure this declaration will not be changed as it is a clear warning against any country trying to occupy neighbouring countries. It has been used against Iraq as well in 1990.
There is, in international law, a clear division between terrorism and legal resistance to illgal occupation.


"But I think that the UN resolutions you are describing, which have always been rejected by the victims of Islamic terrorism, especially Israel and India, will be re-written to be able to define the acts which you justify, as what they really are, which is plain and simple terrorism and mass murder. "

India will not try to change it, as in the case Pakistan should occupy kashmir it will have legal ground for a counter-attack. this same has also been used against Indonesia (a muslim country) occupying east Timor and against Morocco.

"Even the UN calls the mass murder of schoolchildren terrorism, not some right to recover what is claimed to be so-called occupied land, especially when there is a diplomatic process to reach agreement on the land. "

Yes as this is not legitimised by the resolutions or declaration or any international law. But even if a diplomatic process is underway, the resistance against occupation will be legal untill the last troops have left the country. (unless they carry a white flag).

"And, in any event, Israel is not occupying Palestinian land, so the whole issue is not even applicable. That's just Arab propaganda to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Jews. According to UN resolution 242, the borders are to be decided in the process of negotiation, so it cannot be claimed that Israel is an occupier."

let me remind you: "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"
I guess the only logical thing one can conclude from this is that israel has to withdraw from the territories conquered in 1967, isn't it?
And Israel can not just conquer a land and take it without leaving, that's in clear violation to all international laws, there wasn't even need to make a resolution about that. If Fidel would say "ok, today i feel like occupying Jamaica and colonise it with Cubans" it would be illegal, wouldn't it?
about etnic cleansing: before 1967 very few Jews lived there, so the etnoic cleansing could and did only apply to Palestinians who had to face newcomers and colonists who had no connection to tge land whatsoever, clearly violating the geneva-conventions stating that an occupying force can't implant its own population in conquered territories.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/59210ce6d04aef61852560c3005da209!OpenDocument

[NewsGuy]

Well, I'm glad to see that even you don't believe that the attacks on Israeli citizens are anything but Arab terrorism and mass murder, and not by any means a legitimate struggle.

As for UN Resolutions 242, I guess you know this, but maybe some don't:

Unlike the interpretation that we saw from takeo, the British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution, stated that "It would be wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

The resolution also states that any return of land, would only be done with "secure and recognized boundaries" for Israel, a statement that means clearly that Israel is not required to withdraw from 100% of the land captured in the June 1967 war.

Also, it is important to note that the Arabs have always wanted to apply 242 very selectively.

As of today, the Arab states, other than Egypt and Jordan are in breach of 242, which clearly states that it is the right of every state – including Israel – to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Of course, the Arabs never followed this UN resolution, which shows what the Arabs really think UN resolutions are worth. Yet, this resolution, which the Arabs reject, is the exact basis that Arab countries try to use to point a hypocritical finger at Israel.

For more on resolutions 242 and 383, Click Here (http://web.idirect.com/~cic/publications/ForTheRecord/resolution242.html).

[takeo]

Actually this British interpretation and some American interpretations seems rather politically motivated(as a reason not to take action against Israel) and not according the resolution their land signed, many more people considered the interpretation meaning "the land occupied in 1967" which of course this is wich has been literally mentioned. I don't think the word "the" makes any difference to it, this is really a distorted interpretation (as well as the interpretation israel gave at the resolution about the refugees: according to Israel the mentioning "who wish to live in peace in israel" means that palestinians can't return as per definition, according to them, they don't want to live in peace...how far can you go in distorting even the content of a simple sentence...). by the way both Reagan and Carter and Bush made the interpretation that Israel should leave all occupied territories and that the settlements are illegal.


"The resolution also states that any return of land, would only be done with "secure and recognized boundaries" for Israel, a statement that means clearly that Israel is not required to withdraw from 100% of the land captured in the June 1967 war. "

Another very strange interpretation. "Secure and recognised borders" means borders that are recognised by the world in a un-resolution that recognised Israel in 1949!!! And secure borders means borders that should be secure, so it doesn't mean OTHER borders but SAFE borders.

"Also, it is important to note that the Arabs have always wanted to apply 242 very selectively.

As of today, the Arab states, other than Egypt and Jordan are in breach of 242, which clearly states that it is the right of every state – including Israel – to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." "

Yes this is true, the meaning of recognised borders is that the neighbours of israel should recognise the international borders with israel.

"Of course, the Arabs never followed this UN resolution, which shows what the Arabs really think UN resolutions are worth. Yet, this resolution, which the Arabs reject, is the exact basis that Arab countries try to use to point a hypocritical finger at Israel. "

No, actually Jordan, egypt and the PA have recognised this resolution, and some other Arab countries too. Syrian president and the saoudi crownprince also declared they would recognise israel if it retreated within its "secure and recognised borders"

[NewsGuy]

"how far can you go in distorting even the content of a simple sentence...). by the way both Reagan and Carter and Bush made the interpretation that Israel should leave all occupied territories and that the settlements are illegal."

No. All those presidents held the position that the borders would need to be mutually agreed upon between Israel and the Palestinians, through political negotiation which would take place after an end to Arab terrorism.

Although you are partially correct that all those presidents thought that the settlements complicated the situation by "creating facts on the ground," which would make 242 even more outdated and impractical than it already is.

In other words, they knew very well that the US would be asked to compensate the owners of the settlements which would be evacuated (just like the settlement of Yamit which was evacuated to be handed to Egypt as part of the Sinai).

let me also say that if the Palestinians are so concerned with the Israeli settlements, then they should have made peace with Israel a long time ago, before many of these settlements grew into good-size cities. As time passes and the Palestinians keep on using terrorism to destroy the peace negotiations, the settlements grow larger until they will become impossible to uproot and the whole issue will be moot.





"Another very strange interpretation. "Secure and recognised borders" means borders that are recognised by the world in a un-resolution that recognised Israel in 1949!!! And secure borders means borders that should be secure, so it doesn't mean OTHER borders but SAFE borders."

Well, the borders were never designed to be safe for Israel, as admitted publicly by the Brit who drafted 242 himself. So "safe" borders would be automatically anything but what was arbitrarily assigned by the UN.




"No, actually Jordan, egypt and the PA have recognised this resolution, and some other Arab countries too. Syrian president and the saoudi crownprince also declared they would recognise israel if it retreated within its "secure and recognised borders"

If you think that, then please tell me which other Arab state has recognized Israel's right to exist in secure borders. (of course there none).


As for the Saudi prince's bullshit statement, first of all, where was he for the last 35 years?

And, secondly, the official Saudi story is that this "generous" offer was withdrawn. This is so ridiculous that in his infinite mercy, his excellency the prince of Mecca, Medina and petro-dollars will bestow upon Israel the honor of compliance with a 35-year old UN resolution. Mazal Tov to the prince. :D

[takeo]

"let me also say that if the Palestinians are so concerned with the Israeli settlements, then they should have made peace with Israel a long time ago, before many of these settlements grew into good-size cities. As time passes and the Palestinians keep on using terrorism to destroy the peace negotiations, the settlements grow larger until they will become impossible to uproot and the whole issue will be moot. "

palestinians never had the chance to make peace as Israel was never prepared to stop its colonisation policy (which is not likely to benefit peace, even you will recognise this...) and stop occupation, untill the intifadah created a lot of problems for Israel. In the 70's no single israeli government was in favor of returning the occupied territories or stopping colonisation, so they were clearly not interested in peace. And the more the settlements grow the more they will be a serious problem for making peace. Israel has committed itself in Oslo to stop the settlements growth, yet it didn't keep its promise. I despise everyone who goes to live there as they bring their children in danger for a political cause and are part of an illegal policy. Sooner or later they will have to move. The larger the settlements, the more painfull, FOR ISRAEL, to relocate them.







"Well, the borders were never designed ot be safe for Israel, as admitted opublicly by the Brit who drafted 242 himself. So "sfae" borders would be automatically anything but what was arbitrarily assigned by the UN. "

Borders are never designed to be safe for any country, and most borders have been arbitrarly designed, yet once your country is recognised in certain established borders, they can't be changed anymore, unless MUTUAL agreement. (and that means israel will have to give parts of israel in return, if not, the borders stay as they are).




"If you think that, then please tell me which other Arab state has recognized Israel's right to exist in secure borders. (of course there none). "

Morocco for example (i think there are others too)

[NewsGuy]

"palestinians never had the chance to make peace as Israel was never prepared to stop its colonisation policy (which is not likely to benefit peace, even you will recognise this...) and stop occupation, untill the intifadah created a lot of problems for Israel. In the 70's no single israeli government was in favor of returning the occupied territories or stopping colonisation, "

The Palestinians never had the chance to make peace in 35 years? What were they busy doing instead? Trying to invent the ultimate 3-humped sand-eating camel?

They certainly had plenty of time to plan and carry out terrorist acts on Israeli children and other civilians, while Israel was practically begging for peace (in between the wars that the Arabs waged).

And, you have got to be kidding about that 70's comment, because that was the time when Likud-appointed PM Menachem Begin handed over to Egypt nearly 50% of Israel's overall territory and even dismatled the Jewish settlement of Yamit.

And, btw - guess who was the IDF commander who was in charge of dismatling the settlement of Yamit? No other than your good friend Ariel Sharon.





"Morocco for example (i think there are others too)"

No. Morocco and Tunisia decided to establish "liaison offices and liaison channels" channels with Israel. They never formally recognized Israel's right to exist in secure borders and never had a formal declaration of peace, which is the reason there were never formal diplomatic relations.

[takeo]

he Palestinians never had the chance to make peace in 35 years? What were they busy doing instead? Trying to invent the ultimate 3-humped sand-eating camel?

They certainly had plenty of time to plan and carry out terrorist acts on Israeli children and other civilians, while Israel was practically begging for peace (in between the wars that the Arabs waged).

"And, you have got to be kidding about that 70's comment, because that was the time when Likud-appointed PM Menachem Begin handed over to Egypt nearly 50% of Israel's overall territory and even dismatled the Jewish settlement of Yamit. "

Yes, and Carter proposed to include the other occupied territories in this land for peace treaty, Israel bluntly refused, which is why they are still confronted with war and terrorism.

"And, btw - guess who was the IDF commander who was in charge of dismatling the settlement of Yamit? No other than your good friend Ariel Sharon. "

wow, leaving a settlement that Israel build in the Egyptian Sinai, what a tremendous concession!







"No. Morocco and Tunisia decided to establish "liaison offices and liaison channels" channels with Israel. They never formally recognized Israel's right to exist in secure borders and never had a formal declaration of peace, which is the reason there were never formal diplomatic relations."

well, if they really think Israel has no right to xist they wouldn't establish liaison offices . a lot more arab countries would follow them and morocco would recognise Israel fully if a peace-treaty would be conducted.

[takeo]

"They certainly had plenty of time to plan and carry out terrorist acts on Israeli children and other civilians, while Israel was practically begging for peace (in between the wars that the Arabs waged). "

Begging for peace? Tell me exactly when and where before 1993 Israel proposed to leave the occupied territories in return for peace!

[Negev]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

The Palestinians never had the chance to make peace in 35 years? What were they busy doing instead? Trying to invent the ultimate 3-humped sand-eating camel?


hahahahaha!!! :D

you can be a funny guy newsguy.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
Begging for peace? Tell me exactly when and where before 1993 Israel proposed to leave the occupied territories in return for peace!

Israel agreed to trade land for peace since after the 1967 war, when such deals were offered in the final settlement of each war. But the Arabs only agreed to talk about the conditions of cease-fire and exchange of prisoners, and would not agree to even discuss a peaceful coexistence.